" the expression
found in the Septuagint became a
part of the Bible under the direction of
God's spirit.-2 Tim. 3:16, 17."

I think the claim is that as the WT/JW Org consider the writings of Paul to be inspired, (something he never claimed for himself) [ 2 Tim was not written by Paul] the the bits he quoted from the Sept. must have been acceptable in that form to the Holy Spirit, so those bits alone are inspired.

This theory gets embarrassing to them if you point out the sources less venerable in a JW's mind than the Septuagint, the N.T writers reference "worldly" philosophers, and worse ! the Book of Enoch and so on.

Using the WT argument, the bits quoted are "inspired", the rest of the books etc are not.

1.New Testament writers preferred the Septuagint, the
Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures;

2.There are differences between the Hebrew text
and the Greek text of the “Hebrew Scriptures”;

3.The NT writers had access to earlier versions of
the Greek Septuagint.

The available Greek Septuagint texts are about 1000 years
older than the Hebrew manuscripts. All material has several times been deliberately
and accidentally amended. Over the years and centuries, deliberate changes continued
to be made to the Scriptures as ideas and teachings changed.

The Awake! article
does not acknowledge that it relies on the Bible provided to it by the
Protestant Church. Other Christians, such as the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox,
Russian Orthodox, and Coptic Churches use Bibles with different lists of books
(canon). The canon of the Codex Sinaiticus is also not the same as the canon of
the Protestant Bible. The Jews’ Tanakh is also different. Martin Luther wanted
to get rid of four NT books.

After all this, quite illogically, the Awake! article
concludes that the Bible it uses is “Jehovah’s Word”.

The following is from pages ix-xi of Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution That Made Our Modern
Religious World, by Philip Jenkins.

Doug

========================

The Jewish Bible—the “Hebrew Bible”—has three sections, the Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings), which
gives us the acronym Tanakh. In the
books that it treats as approved or canonical, that collection corresponds
exactly to the Protestant Old Testament. However, the precise number of books
differs somewhat in each version, because works that are treated as a unity in
the Hebrew (such as Ezra and Nehemiah) are distinguished in the Protestant
text.

In its attitude to the canon—that is, in its choice of
approved works—the “Hebrew Bible” represents one approach, but it is not
necessarily the only one. During the third century BCE, Jewish scholars
translated biblical texts into the Greek version known as the Septuagint. Because
it is a translation, one would assume that its readings are inferior to those
of the Hebrew or Aramaic, but that is not always so. In many cases, the
Septuagint preserved readings that are older and arguably more authentic. Also,
the Septuagint reflects the choice of books prevailing in the ancient era and
is thus considerably wider in scope than what is found in the Tanakh. The fact
that certain books were accepted within the canon while others were rejected
was based on critical and historical assumptions that were not always sound—for
instance, deciding which books might be genuinely ancient.

In creating their own canon, most Christian churches from
early times through the Reformation relied on the Septuagint and thus included
in their Old Testaments several works absent from the Hebrew Bible. This meant
1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Baruch, Judith, and the
Wisdom of Solomon; in addition, they knew more extended versions of books like
Daniel and Esther. During the sixteenth-century Reformation, Protestants
demoted these books to the inferior level of Apocrypha, “hidden things,” but that division was not observed by
Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians or by many other smaller churches around
the world. For non-Protestants these Deuterocanonical
books (literally, the “Second Canon”) are canonical rather than merely
apocryphal, and they are unequivocally part of the Old Testament. Orthodox
churches use the category anagignoskomena,
“those which are to be read,” which includes the Deuterocanonicals, but also 1
Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151.

It is therefore difficult to know how to refer to texts that
are canon for some but not for others. To illustrate the problem, how should I
refer to the influential book of Sirach, which was originally written in Hebrew
around 190 BCE, although historically it was mainly known in Greek? Portions of
the Hebrew original survive among the Dead Sea Scrolls (together with the Book
of Tobit), although that does not necessarily say anything about the canonical
status of either work. In later times, Sirach did not form part of either the
Hebrew Bible or the Protestant Old Testament, but it is canonical for
Catholics, Orthodox, and other groups. It thus forms part of (some) Old
Testaments, but not the Hebrew Bible.

Complicating the matter further, some sizable churches have
long operated in isolation from other Christian communities and they are still
more expansive in their definitions. The most significant is the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which counts an impressive forty million members.
Besides the familiar books of the Protestant Bible plus the Deuterocanonical
works, they also use and canonize other significant writings that once
circulated widely but have since been forgotten in most of the Christian world.
These include 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees. Various churches worldwide also
accept additional books under the general name of “Maccabees.”